Talk:People's Liberation Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Mass surveillance  
WikiProject icon People's Liberation Army is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

Talk:People's Liberation Army/Archive 1

Cyberwarfare unit[edit]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/china/2011/china-110526-cna01.htm

Where to stick this? Hcobb (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

From Talk:Computer insecurity, also consider China Singled Out for Cyberspying; U.S. Intelligence Report Labels Chinese 'Most Active' in Economic Espionage; Russia Also Named; see Blue Army (not Blue Team (U.S. politics)) in November 4th, 2011 WSJ by Siobhan Gorman. 99.190.85.111 (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

potential WSJ resource, regarding Indian Ocean, Seychelles, Sino-American relations[edit]

See India–United States relations and Sino-Indian relations, etc ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:J-10a zhas.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:J-10a zhas.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:J-10a zhas.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What do the numbers mean?[edit]

It is unclear to me what the terms used in the side box mean. Can anyone clarify?
Examples:

  1. How can there be 6 million Deployed Personnel and yet only 2.3 million Active Personal?
  2. Are the numbers for Available for Service snd Fit for Service a calculation of the number of people who have ever served in the armed forces (i.e. all people who have been conscripted)?
  3. Why are both the numbers for Available for Service snd Fit for Service not simply the total number of able bodied men and women between the ages of x and x ?

In my opinion the numbers for Available for Service snd Fit for Service should be deleted if they correspond only to a concept of military training and conscription and not to military establishment. Figures like these are not given for other Western countries eg USA.
LookingGlass (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

At what level will the joint operational command system operate?[edit]

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140105000105&cid=1101

I haven't been able to figure out at which level the new command structure will interact with the CMC. Is it a "joint chiefs" or a system of unified regional commanders? Hcobb (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Links[edit]

>> China announces military spending increase (Lihaas (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)).

Article is named wrong[edit]

The correct full name is "Chinese People's Liberation Army." Even the characters given in the opening line: 中国人民解放军 confirm this, as the first three 中国人 mean "Chinese People." Here are three high quality sources:

China Military Online - About Us
http://english.chinamil.com.cn/site2/militarydatabase/2007-02/16/content_738761.htm
"China Military Online is now the only authoritative media of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to release military news and comprehensive military-related information on the Internet."
The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA)
U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=959
People's Daily Online
The Chinese People's Liberation Army
http://english.people.com.cn/data/organs/pla.shtml

This is my first time here, so I hope a regular editor will at least note the full name in bold in the opening sentence. You don't have to rename the entire article, though that would be most accurate. 5Q5 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Numbers don't seem to add up[edit]

Under the heading "PLA ground force" the article states:

"The PLA deploys the world's largest ground force, currently totaling some 1.7 million personnel, or about 70 percent of the PLA's total manpower (3.4 million)."

However, 1.7 million is not 70 percent of 3.4 million... so it is unclear what is being expressed here.

In the paragraph above that one, the article mentions "its current strength of 2.28 million personnel". It's unclear if "personnel" means the same thing as "total manpower" but these numbers (2.28 million and 3.4 million) also seem to disagree.

Inimino (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)